RAM SINGH Vs. PARKASH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) LANDLORD Parkash Ram filed the ejectment application dated January 21, 1985, against his tenant Ram Singh, for his eviction from the premises, in dispute, which were on rent with him since 1975 on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. The ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent since the year 1975 except the period when the rent was sent by the tenant through money orders; and also on ground that the premises, in dispute, were required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation because he was employed as a Head Constable and posted at Phillaur and was about to retire on superannuation on April 30, 1988. In the reply filed by the tenant; he admitted the tenancy and stated that he had spent about Rs. 8,000/- on construction after taking vacant plot from the landlord and in spite of that he had paying rent regularly and he had been getting receipts therefor. He had been sending the rent due through money orders which were received by the landlord and later on he refused to received the same and the rent due was tendered on the first date of hearing. It was denied that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant had failed to prove that only vacant plot was let out to him, and that the construction upon the same was made by him by spending huge amount from his own pocket. It was further found that the payment made on the first date of hearing was not valid as the tenant had failed to prove that he had paid the rent to the landlord prior to the year 1983, which is said to have been paid by him by money order. However, the plea of the landlord that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation was negatived. Ultimately, the eviction order was passed on October 15, 1985. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller on the question of non-payment of rent and thus maintained the eviction order. According to the Appellate Authority, the tenant was in arrears of rent and that the tender made by him was not valid because the tender had been made for the period from November, 1984 to March, 1985, whereas the rent had been claimed since the year, 1975. During the pendency of this revision petition, the landlord Parkash Ram died on July 7, 1987. Consequently, his wife, sons and daughters were brought on the record as his legal representatives. The said legal representatives moved an application under Order 6 rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the ejectment application, vide Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 6213-CII of 1988. By virtue of the amendment they wanted to convert the ejectment application to the one under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as amended. Notice of the application was given to the learned counsel for the tenant who was directed to file his reply by way of written statement to the amended ejectment application under Section 13A of the said Act, which has been filed today in court.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the said judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case and are distinguishable. In the present case, the stand taken by the tenant was that he had himself constructed the kotha on the vacant plot by spending about Rs. 8,000/- and he was, thus, entitled to deduct the same from the rent, but in spite of that he had been paying the rent which according to the learned counsel, could not be believed in the ordinary course of nature. Moreover, the rent for the subsequent period was paid by money orders on which the tenant had written that the rent for that very period was being sent, which the landlord received. In these circumstances, argued the learned counsel, it was for the tenant to prove by cogent evidence that he was not in arrears of rent since the year 1975, as claimed by the landlord in the ejectment application. In any case argued the learned counsel, since both the authorities below have concurrently found against the tenant in this behalf, it does not require interference in the revisional jurisdiction.